hen financial crisis hit Asia in 1997, America's leaders charged Asian governments with practicing crony capitalism. In retrospect, the charge seems like rank hypocrisy. America has shown itself to be second to none in practicing cronyism, first with its rotten corporate scandals of recent years, and now in Iraq. Asian capitalists may have stolen some borrowed loot, but at least they didn't mix finance with war.
Whatever other goals lay behind the Iraq war, the Bush administration seems keen to line the pockets of its cronies and to capture increased control over Middle East oil and pipeline routes. Only a few pesky obstacles -- the UN and the Iraqi people -- stand in their way.
The Iraq war was ostensibly launched because of former president Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), yet each passing day suggests that the threat was exaggerated. Another goal also loomed large: control over 11 percent (or more) of the world's oil reserves and, in the longer term, control over pipeline routes between the Mediterranean, the Caspian Sea and the Indian Ocean.
ILLUSTATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
The failure to locate Saddam's WMDs is putting America's grab for Iraqi oil into sharp focus. The Cheney-Rumsfeld team is so arrogant that it acts as if it can flaunt the takeover of Middle East oil while brushing aside questions.
In Afghanistan last year, the US installed Hamid Karzai, a former consultant for oil giant Unocal, as interim leader. It also appointed Kalmay Khalilzad, another former Unocal consultant -- indeed, Karzai's boss -- as special US envoy. Khalilzad and Karzai spent considerable efforts in the late 1990s to get an American-built pipeline to carry gas from Turke-minstan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and the Indian Ocean.
Even before the bombs stopped falling on Baghdad, Khalilzad's writ as special envoy was extended to Iraq. Among his likely jobs in Iraq will be to secure a pipeline carrying Iraqi oil from Mosul, Iraq to Haifa, Israel via Syria. To stop Syria from objecting, the US is now threatening it as well.
Khalilzad will have plenty of support in the Bush administration, which is heavily loaded with oil industry executives.
National Security Advisor Condeleeza Rice was a director of Chevron-Texaco before coming to the National Security Council. She even had an oil tanker named after her. Secretary of Commerce Don Evans is also an oil-company chief executive officer. Vice President Dick Cheney was in effect lead conductor of the group when he served as chairman of Halliburton, the world's largest oil services company. Halliburton is now at the front of the line for Iraqi reconstruction projects, for which contracts are being handed out without any transparent and competitive process whatsoever.
But what is happening here is more than "guilt by association" with the oil industry. The Bush administration is flouting every rule to give its cronies the inside track.
Before joining the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was a key player as well. A longstanding sidekick of Cheney, Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad in 1983 and 1984 at the behest of former Bechtel president George Shultz, then passing a bit of non-corporate time as US secretary of state. Rumsfeld's hidden mission was to win Saddam's support of a Bechtel-built oil pipeline to run from Iraq via Jordan to the Gulf of Aqaba.
This is the same Bechtel which built Saddam's "dual use" chemical industry; now it has been awarded a non-competitive US$600 million mega-contract to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure.
US newspapers now report that former Shell Oil chief executive officer Philip Carroll will be appointed as the US czar of Iraqi oil. Carroll's most recent job was as chief executive of construction giant Fluor, another company that, together with Bechtel and Halliburton, is in line for the big bucks that will soon be paid (using Iraq's oil earnings) for US-led reconstruction.
The UK can't match the US in cronyism, but Britain's support for the US in the war also has a commercial logic. While Saddam gave oil contracts to French, Russian, and Chinese oil firms, UK firms such as BP were frozen out. UK firms are no doubt counting on returning to Iraq on US coattails.
Only a few hurdles remain before the US can consummate its crony takeover of Iraq's oil. America will soon try to appoint an Iraqi regime that will aim to cancel many of Saddam's oil contracts with France, Russia and China, in order to make room for US and UK firms. But this will be harder to accomplish than simply sending in the US army.
The US can not legally market Iraqi oil, much less invest in new fields, until the old UN sanctions against Iraq are lifted. But the rest of the world believes that lifting the sanctions is tantamount to handing Iraq's oil future over to the US and UK occupying forces and their corporate cronies.
More telling, and significant in the long term, is the remarkable anti-US and anti-UK sentiment now sweeping Iraq. Rather than being welcomed as liberators, the US and UK are seen as new colonial occupiers, and the Iraqis are mobilizing to push the occupiers out. The US may have done something few could have expected: united the Shiites and the Sunnis in a common cause. Democracy may come to Iraq, and the will of the people will be to stop the plunder of their country's natural resources by US crony capitalists.
Jeffrey Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s